Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="skene" data-source="post: 411108" data-attributes="member: 13155">Those lenses are all telephoto.The 16-85 would not benefit you any more than what the 18-55 would have done... except give you a wider range.Same with the 18-70 (old kit lens and the 18-55 would have been better than this) and 17-50 (however the Sigma would give you better low light capabilities).&nbsp; So basically all you would be looking at is just a lens that still basically sets itself close to the kit lens.The 3200 I would consider a step slightly up but more sideways compared to the 5100 you previously owned.&nbsp; So the feel and everything else is the same.&nbsp; The D300 and 7000 would be a better step up, with more control on the fly vs the menu based options of the 3xxx and 5xxx bodies.&nbsp; Also allowing for a wider range of lenses due to the AF motor.&nbsp; But if you have been doing your research, you would have already known this.So just buy whatever you can afford and instead spend more on better glass.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="skene, post: 411108, member: 13155"] Those lenses are all telephoto. The 16-85 would not benefit you any more than what the 18-55 would have done... except give you a wider range. Same with the 18-70 (old kit lens and the 18-55 would have been better than this) and 17-50 (however the Sigma would give you better low light capabilities). So basically all you would be looking at is just a lens that still basically sets itself close to the kit lens. The 3200 I would consider a step slightly up but more sideways compared to the 5100 you previously owned. So the feel and everything else is the same. The D300 and 7000 would be a better step up, with more control on the fly vs the menu based options of the 3xxx and 5xxx bodies. Also allowing for a wider range of lenses due to the AF motor. But if you have been doing your research, you would have already known this. So just buy whatever you can afford and instead spend more on better glass. [/QUOTE]

Verification